Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
- not at FUDCon
I've told you I'm sorry, give it a rest already.
The problem is not me or others being in FUDCon or not but decisions
being made there which will always exclude people. Ours a global
community and the ability to attend conferences in a particular place
anywhere in the world is limited. You said you will do it again which
seemed to be that you didn't understand the issue. It is nothing personal.
And how do you think your comments are not in the new process we've come
up with during FUDCon?
It is not since I wasn't in FUDCon.
- "what should a report contain?"
I'm not sure yet, have any ideas? This has settled down just under 3
days, and it hasn't even been voted upon yet. Do you want all the
details now? You sure? Because that would make it more permanent and
less flexible then the state it's in now (still open for suggestions).
Here is what I suggest:
* Postpone the IRC meeting and voting now. It is too early and there has
not been enough details to warrant a vote yet.
* Post a summary of what was discussed in FUDCon and the new proposal
discussed in the FUDCon. Communicate as much details as possible so that
spin owners can understand why the changes were made and ask for input
in this list and not on a IRC meeting. Wait for a week or two so that we
can discuss it further and then maybe arrange a IRC meeting.
- you're confused on what process it is we're talking about
Suggested solution: read the Spins_Process page on the Wiki
- you're looking for what the process was and how we streamlined it
Suggested solution: read the Spins_Process page on the Wiki
I already did. You would know that if you had read my mails since I was
specific and pointed out a few examples where there aren't enough details.
- you're eager to know what needs to be done for XFCE and other spins
you submitted
Suggested solution: Await what the Spins SIG comes up with after the
meeting, since this item is on the agenda
Since I am part of Spin SIG, I am giving my feedback to try and steer
the decision in the right direction.
- you have an opinion about Spins being Spins vs. Features
Suggested solution: weight that argument in your vote for the new process
I can't be in the IRC meeting and I don't think voting without details
in the right way to do it. I am explaining it in the list so you can
consider it while making the decision.
- """It would be still viable if the process is outlined. The process
has to be in discussed and in place before FESCo delegates it to
somebody else."""
1) The process is outlined
2) the process has been discussed, with representatives of Rel-eng, our
dear Feature Wrangler, the Spins SIG leader, a few
spin-submitting/maintaining users, a FESCo delegate, and reviewed
afterwards by QA and the Rel-Eng lead. Remember that Rel-Eng in the
first place is the party to whom FESCo delegated responsibility.
I don't know what was discussed since a summary wasn't posted in this
list. Filling in the details would be helpful.
I could continue but I don't feel like it. I sure hope this email sounds
dismissive enough for you to finally stop arguing over nothing and
continue the part of the thread where I think you may have actually said
something useful.
If you don't feel I have said anything useful so far, I am sorry to hear
that but then, we have nothing more to discuss. Carry on with your
meeting and I will deal with the result when it comes to that point.
Thanks.
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
